Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 215

What happened in the last Korean War?

As the drums of war beat ever louder in Korea, many people have asked me about what happened to share prices during the last Korean War. It is a fascinating story as the 1951-52 stock market fall in Australia was the only instance of a major sell-off here that was not accompanied by a fall in the US market. At all other times, we follow the US market up and down.

Australian and US markets diverge

Share prices surged during the early stages of the War but then the Australian market fell by 36% from 7 May 1951 to 29 September 1952 and then rose only very weakly in 1953-54. In contrast, the US market remained strong throughout the War, pausing only briefly at the end of the war in 1953 before surging strongly again in 1954.

Here is a daily chart of the Sydney All Ordinaries Index (green) and the US Dow Jones (red) from the middle of 1949 to the end of 1954.

Please click on image to enlarge.

It was feared that the Korean War may start World War III but it ended in a stalemate in mid-1953 with Korea divided in two, as it remains today. The prelude was Mao Zedong declaring the People’s Republic of China on 1 October 1949, and the US sending the first war ships and planes as a show of force against China in May 1950, before sending in troops in September. Australia supported the US by also sending in troops.

Other global events

In addition, there were a number of other cold war skirmishes around the world at the time, with the Soviets brutally suppressing uprisings in Eastern Europe, the French losing the first Indochina war, the Anglo-Persian dispute in May 1951, the Kashmir dispute in July 1951 that threatened to reignite the India-Pakistan war, and the start of the Cuban revolution.

The US was testing atom bombs and H-bombs in the Pacific while Australia was allowing the UK to test nuclear bombs here on our flora, fauna and aboriginal population. The threat of communism drove domestic politics in Australia and the US. In Australia, Chifley was trying but failing to nationalise the banks, and was defeated by Menzies. In the US, Truman was trying and also failing to nationalise the steel industry, replaced by Eisenhower. In Australia, we had the Petrov defection and the Soviet espionage affair, and the US had McCarthyist witch-hunts for suspected communists. Everywhere there were union agitation and strikes that were quickly branded as communist inspired.

Why was the Australian market so weak?

Why did Australian share prices fall while US shares powered through it all? The answer is inflation (shown in the chart as orange bars) and the War was only partly to blame. Inflation in Australia was already running at 9% in 1949 and 1950 but shot up quickly to 25% by the end of 1951. It was partly due to the surge in post-WW2 demand as war-time price controls were lifted, but it was made much worse by our centralised wage fixing system that increased wages as prices rose, creating an inflationary spiral. The 30% devaluation of the Australian pound in 1949 (when Sterling devalued and we stuck with Sterling not the US dollar) did not help.

Another major factor was the trebling of the price of wool (our main export earner) as the US bought up all of our wool (and many other commodities) in advance for the War effort, leading to a surge in export revenues. The banks were also to blame, ignoring the regulator’s various attempts to rein in their profligate post-war lending boom. Runaway inflation was only brought back below 5% in 1953 by a combination of savage sales tax hikes, tariff hikes, spending cuts and lending controls.

The differences between Australia and the US were mainly in our domestic policy responses to inflation, not the War itself. The US also had an inflation spike in 1951 but it peaked at 9% and fell to very low levels again (below 2%) by 1952 as the Fed raised interest rates. The Korean War hyperinflation episode in Australia and the deflationary recession that followed in 1953 provided much of the impetus that led to the formation of the Reserve Bank and the short-term money market in 1959 that would allow credit and economic activity to be controlled via short-term interest rates as it was in the US.

What might the future hold?

First, war is usually a disaster for investors on the losing side – their assets are generally confiscated, their debts are repudiated, companies are expropriated and ownership rights in shares, bonds and property are confiscated. Examples include: the Paris Bourse after the Waterloo loss, Confederate bonds and shares after the American Civil War, St Petersburg stock market after the Russian Revolution, the Shanghai stock market after the Chinese Revolution, Berlin and Tokyo shares after WW2, Saigon shares after victory by North Vietnam, etc. The victors take everything and impose their own new laws.

So, if you believe the next Korean War will lead to Australia being invaded, occupied and subsumed by China with all privately-owned assets confiscated (as Mao Zedong did when he won the revolutionary war in China in 1949) then you should probably sell all your assets while there is still a free market for them. But the chance of Australia being invaded and absorbed into a greater Communist China any time soon is approximately zero. Even when China absorbed Hong Kong in 1997 and Macau in 1999, private commercial interests were retained and indeed flourished.

Otherwise, wars and rapid military build-ups are generally good for business. Commodities prices skyrocket because demand suddenly accelerates as the government buys up everything for the war effort. Governments often control prices (and perhaps share prices) to prevent excess profiteering. Even in Australia’s darkest year in WW2, 1942, with Japanese bombs raining down across Northern Australia after the fall of Singapore and with Sydney Harbour bombed by Japanese subs, Australian shares returned 18%, or a healthy 9% after inflation.

Since the GFC, every central banker in the world has been dreaming about how to revive inflation, and they are fully aware that military conflict is the only sure solution. As military build-ups escalate in China, the US, Japan and Russia, central bankers are likely to allow inflation to rise for a while before taking steps too little and too late to bring it back under control.

 

Ashley Owen is Chief Investment Officer at privately-owned advisory firm Stanford Brown and The Lunar Group. He is also a Director of Third Link Investment Managers, a fund that supports Australian charities. This article is general information that does not consider the circumstances of any individual.

  •   17 August 2017
  • 2
  •      
  •   
2 Comments
Warren Brainard-Smith
August 17, 2017

Ashley, What exactly do you mean by this statementa:

Since the GFC, every central banker in the world has been dreaming about how to revive inflation, and they are fully aware that military conflict is the only sure solution. As military build-ups escalate in China, the US, Japan and Russia, central bankers are likely to allow inflation to rise for a while before taking steps too little and too late to bring it back under control.

Regards

Warren

ashley
August 17, 2017

hi warren,
Since the late 1970s central bankers had abandoned their Keynesian hard-wiring and instead re-taught themselves that inflation was bad and had to be attacked at the first sign. But the US in 2008-9 and Europe in 2010-1 raised the prospect of deflationary spirals like Japan in the 1990s and US/UK/Europe in the 1930s, and this turned them into pro-inflation champions once again. They lie awake at night salivating at the thought of high inflation and wondering how they might create it. With QE programs, negative interest rates and direct cash hand-outs they actively set out to create asset price inflation (in shares, property, bonds) in the misguided hope that it would trickle down to consumer price inflation and wages growth but it hasn't.
They are also aware that the last time a central banker was pro-active in fighting inflation (Greenspan in 1994) it led to big losses in bond markets, which in turn triggered hedge fund collapses, city government bankruptcies, etc. Today with bond prices at super-high levels and skinny credit spreads, they will err on the side of waiting and watching, for fear of a major sell-off triggering bankruptcies in the zombie European banks. Because of the lags in data collection, policy making, decision making, and flow-on effects, by the time they take corrective action it will be too little, too late, and that will probably mean big corrective steps that will cause economic relapses, job losses, etc. Lags and cycles will always beat attempts to smooth the ride.

cheers

ashley

 

Leave a Comment:

RELATED ARTICLES

Reality bites

Is 'The Great Australian Dream' a sham?

A banking crisis is here, the credit crunch may be next

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

The growing debt burden of retiring Australians

More Australians are retiring with larger mortgages and less super. This paper explores how unlocking housing wealth can help ease the nation’s growing retirement cashflow crunch.

Four best-ever charts for every adviser and investor

In any year since 1875, if you'd invested in the ASX, turned away and come back eight years later, your average return would be 120% with no negative periods. It's just one of the must-have stats that all investors should know.

LICs vs ETFs – which perform best?

With investor sentiment shifting and ETFs surging ahead, we pit Australia’s biggest LICs against their ETF rivals to see which delivers better returns over the short and long term. The results are revealing.

Family trusts: Are they still worth it?

Family trusts remain a core structure for wealth management, but rising ATO scrutiny and complex compliance raise questions about their ongoing value. Are the benefits still worth the administrative burden?

13 ways to save money on your tax - legally

Thoughtful tax planning is a cornerstone of successful investing. This highlights 13 legal ways that you can reduce tax, preserve capital, and enhance long-term wealth across super, property, and shares.

Warren Buffett's final lesson

I’ve long seen Buffett as a flawed genius: a great investor though a man with shortcomings. With his final letter to Berkshire shareholders, I reflect on how my views of Buffett have changed and the legacy he leaves.

Latest Updates

Retirement

Why it’s time to ditch the retirement journey

Retirement isn’t a clean financial arc. Income shocks, health costs and family pressures hit at random, exposing the limits of age-based planning and the myth of a predictable “retirement journey".

Financial planning

How much does it really cost to raise a child?

With fertility rates at a record low, many say young people aren’t having kids because they’re too expensive. Turns out, it’s not that simple and there are likely other factors at play.

Exchange traded products

Passive ETF investors may be in for a rude shock

Passive ETFs have become wildly popular just as markets, especially the US, reach extreme valuations. For long-term investors, these ETFs make sense, though if you're investing in them to chase performance, look out below.

Shares

Bank reporting season scorecard November 2025

The Big Four banks shrugged off doomsayers with their recent results, posting low loan losses, solid margins, and rising dividends. It underscores their resilience, but lofty valuations mean it’s time to be selective. 

Investment strategies

The real winners from the AI rush

AI is booming, but like the 19th-century gold rush, the real profits may go to those supplying the tools and energy, not the companies at the centre of the rush.

Economy

Why economic forecasts are rarely right (but we still need them)

Economic experts, including the RBA, get plenty of forecasts wrong, but that doesn't make such forecasts worthless. The key isn't to predict perfectly – it's to understand the range of possibilities and plan accordingly.

Strategy

13 reflections on wealth and philanthropy

Wealth keeps growing, yet few ask “how much is enough?” or what their kids truly need. After 23 years in philanthropy, I’ve seen how unexamined wealth can limit impact, and why Australia needs a stronger giving culture.

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2025 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.